Trial Discussion Thread #32

[wb180]

No one is dismissing this witness. We were talking specifically about when Burger first reported the pause between shots. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why is this even a point of contention?

It's not for me. That's my point. This is such a small point in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

So you are saying she lied, under oath, because she wants him convicted? Sorry, I am not buying it. Nope
MOO

 

[wb180]

So you are saying she lied, under oath, because she wants him convicted? Sorry, I am not buying it. Nope
MOO

Doesn't matter. It just shows how weak the defense case is to rebutt the prima facie case of murder haha.

But it makes for interesting websleuthing though!

 

[Viper]

rbsm

Just who exactly said "Reeva would have died in nine (9) minutes?"

...because I certainly didn't, nor did I commit to a time.

Hmm, correct you did not say those words. You said words that mean exactly the same thing though. Semantics at play with your post? You have put forth that your medical expertise, experience and knowledge, supports Nest's determination that the blood over the railing and on the staircase wall was from arterial spurting, and you have put forth that it requires and includes that Reeva's heart was still beating at 3:25-3:26, nine (9) minutes after her brain and breathing functions had ceased and two of her arteries were severed and gushing blood in the WC.

I have asked you to post a documented case of a woman with two severed arteries, no brain function, and no respiratory (breathing) function whose heart continued to beat and pump blood after nine (9) minutes had passed. Perhaps that was too long a period of time. How about after five (5) minutes had passed? Would you, could you, post a link? I'll wait.

 

[nastasya]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

Why accuse an innocent bystander in murder case of committing perjury?

That's libel.

Can you back up your claim?

 

[Jake18]

Hi again Val,

Thank you so much for posting all of those. I have no expertise or experience with blood spatter. So far, I accept the PT's expert's testimony. The pictures from the Fox site do keep in perspective the amount of "spurting" &"spatter" we are dealing with, excluding the toilet.

To quote myself from post 1118-
"...I would conclude from the latter that squeezing or compressing an injured limb with said injured artery, would consequently NOT yield an arterial pattern, although it might 'eject' blood." So, I am not certain how this got misinterpreted or any of my other opinions on the matter keep getting misinterpreted and incorrectly paraphrased.

I just gave myself a massive headache re reviewing the dialogue on this issue. I will spare you the headache and save that for Viper;-)

Nutshell, I'm going with the expert until I have sound reasons or data to discredit or weaken his conclusion. To date, I have none.

For the above reasons, I can conclude NOTHING about those pictures except that we're not dealing with a lot of blood. I can speculate or speculate on the likelihood of someone else's speculation but I would never want that to be misinterpreted.

These experts have significant experience and an understanding of the applicable physics & hemodynamics that I do not.

Plus we have no idea of all of Nests' reasoning/ rationale for making his determination in the areas in question. For all we know, and can't evaluate, in addition to the undulation there are probably other criteria and honestly without reading a textbook or paper, which I'm not about to do, it is best for me not to weigh in.

Thank you so much for the informative links and images!!!

Ditto! Good post.

Edited to add : while it can be fun to speculate this field is so highly specialised that it would take only another blood splatter expert's opinion to make me reconsider Nest's testimony.

 

[minor4th]

So you are saying she lied, under oath, because she wants him convicted? Sorry, I am not buying it. Nope
MOO

That's fine.

And that's not what I said.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

That is what you said. You said she is embellishing because she wants him convicted.
MOO

 

[minor4th]

That is what you said. You said she is embellishing because she wants him convicted.
MOO

Embellish

 

[Jake18]

Oh Jake. You remind me of Steve constantly replying to all of Minor's posts in support of whatever he was saying. SMH

Nah, I just recognise a good bottom line when I see it. And, to paraphrase Dixon, fluid mechanics is not my best friend.

 

[Viper]

Nah, I just recognise a good bottom line when I see it. And, to paraphrase Dixon, fluid mechanics is not my best friend.

You are paraphrasing Dixon to support an argument. Really?

 

[lisasalinger]

Alright, I just took a dive in the pool and posted my theory on the other thread. My apologies for the length of it. I have not mastered the art of being brief

 

[Suthrnqt]

Embellish

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/embellish

Embellish: to enhance (a statement or narrative) with FICTITIOUS additions.

ullhair

 

[liesbeth]

Here's an interesting article about Crime Scene Procedures.

http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/2006/10/crime_scene_pro.html

• The police photographer does not have to be alone while taking the photographs. Van Staden stated various times that, as the official photographer, it was his decision to do things a certain way. This is why I do not understand the whole Col. Motha thing. It was Van Staden's decision to be alone, but nothing stopped him if he wanted other people there. So he had absolutely no reason to lie about this. It was his prerogative to make these decisions because he was the official photographer.
• Other officers can take pictures too. There is no rule against it.
• As soon as Van Staden was done with the first set of photographs (Album 1 or overall photographs described below) other officers moved in to do the search and maybe take their own photographs.
• Note that only the overall (Album 1) photographs must be taken before anything is disturbed. Once these are taken, then things must be moved to take the mid range and close up photos and also to do a thorough search for new evidence that must then also be photographed.

First Responder Priorities: (In our case it's Van Rensburg)

1. Determine need for medical assistance. (Check)
2. Confirm or pronounce death. (Paramedic. Check.)
3. Conduct a scene walk through (Van Rensburg and Botha did this.)
4. Take steps to preserve and protect area. (Check)
5. Secure and isolate the crime scene using ropes or barricades. (Check)
6. Exclude all unauthorized personnel from scene. (Check)
7. Determine the lead investigator. (Check. Van Rensburg appointed Botha. Later it is Van Aardt.)

Physical evidence can be rendered useless by people wandering through the area. Every single person has the potential to destroy valuable evidence. It's the responsibility of the officer to prohibit access to anyone not directly involved with processing the site (including fellow officers).

Evaluation of the Area:
Determine the boundaries of the scene. (Check)
Establish the perpetrator’s entrance and exit. (Check.)
Initial walk though of the scene to determine the strategy for documentation of the entire crime scene. (Check.)

Documenting the Scene:
Photography/Video, Sketching, Notes.

Overall photos: Album 1 by Van Staden.

• Photographs must be in unaltered condition. (Check.)
• Overview photographs are taken of the entire scene and surrounding areas, including walls and points of entry and exit. (Check.)
• The purpose is to include as much as possible in one photograph. (Check)
• The goal is to ensure that each important item is in at least one photo. (Check)
• Should be taken before anything is disturbed. (Check)
• Photographs of physical evidence: should show the position and location relevant to the scene. (Check)
• Photographs of the body: should show the body's position relative to the scene. (Check)

Mid Range Photographs: Van Staden. Album 2-? (Check)

• The purpose is to focus attention on a specific object.
• Scales should be used when indicated. Without a scale, many photos can't be admitted in court.
• Photos of wounds and bruises should be photographed with and without scales.

Close up Photographs: (Check)
The purpose is show a specific aspect of an object up close.
Photos can show pattern of injuries
Photos showing injuries or weapons lying near the body are necessary.
After the body is removed, close up photos should be taken of the area underneath.

Searching the Scene:
Conducting the search for evidence is the responsibility of the lead investigator. A thorough search is imperative and no important evidence should be overlooked. Failure to collect all pertinent evidence may lead to charges of negligence or tampering. (This is what Roux will try to show.)

Collection of Evidence:
The collection of physical evidence is vital to any crime scene search. The goal of collection is to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Physical evidence can be anything from huge items to minute traces of blood, dust, and fibers which can only be examined in the crime laboratory. Physical evidence must be handled in an exact manner thus preventing any contamination of the evidence. Blood evidence, for example, cannot be packaged wet or it will grow mold. The handlers need to try to prevent any change from taking place from the time the evidence is collected at the scene until it reaches the laboratory.

 

[lisasalinger]

OP testified that he turned off the alarm when he opened the front door.

Why?

He had just been calling for help on his balcony moments before.

Was he concerned the alarm would wake his neighbors?

Very thoughtful of him to think of not setting off the alarm while Reeva lay gasping her last breaths in the bathroom upstairs.

He didn't have to turn the alarm off because it was never on that night.

Nel tripped him up when they were discussing the alarm system. OP almost had no choice but to lie and say that he had switched the alarm on that night because otherwise, he would have been proving that he was totally careless about his security.

If his alarm really had been on that night, it most definitely would have been discussed by Roux in his direct examination.

 

[homegirl]

Here's an interesting article about Crime Scene Procedures.

http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/2006/10/crime_scene_pro.html

• The police photographer does not have to be alone while taking the photographs. Van Staden stated various times that, as the official photographer, it was his decision to do things a certain way. This is why I do not understand the whole Col. Motha thing. It was Van Staden's decision to be alone, but nothing stopped him if he wanted other people there. So he had absolutely no reason to lie about this. It was his prerogative to make these decisions because he was the official photographer.
• Other officers can take pictures too. There is no rule against it.
• As soon as Van Staden was done with the first set of photographs (Album 1 or overall photographs described below) other officers moved in to do the search and maybe take their otwn photographs.
• Note that only the overall (Album 1) photographs must be taken before anything is disturbed. Once these are taken, then things must be moved to take the mid range and close up photos and also to do a thorough search for new evidence that must then also be photographed.

• 
  SBM
  
  Thank you times 10 for this post.
  
  Without understanding which photos were taken when, it is all to easy to misinterpret and to be misled. It seems to me that the police did a pretty good job all in all. Sure, someone walked around without their booties on at some point, but I am confident that the only contamination of the scene was done by OP and friends.

 

[Karmady]

Does anyone know how to make an indented or bulleted list?

Thanks in advance!

I think the best way to do it would be to cut and paste it from elsewhere...unless I can talk you out of an indented and bulleted list entirely lol

 

[sicknote]

I was just replying to another post that said Burger came up with the pause between shots in her first statement before the ballistics were known - that's not the case. She first said it in court.

Burger thinks he's lying and he's guilty and wants him convicted. That's her motive for embellishing.

Did Roux say it was 2 double taps before the ballistics were known?

 

[crasshopper]

Hmm, correct you did not say those words. You said words that mean exactly the same thing though. Semantics at play with your post? You have put forth that your medical expertise, experience and knowledge, supports Nest's determination that the blood over the railing and on the staircase wall was from arterial spurting, and you have put forth that it requires and includes that Reeva's heart was still beating at 3:25-3:26, nine (9) minutes after her brain and breathing functions had ceased and two of her arteries were severed and gushing blood in the WC.

I have asked you to post a documented case of a woman with two severed arteries, no brain function, and no respiratory (breathing) function whose heart continued to beat and pump blood after nine (9) minutes had passed. Perhaps that was too long a period of time. How about after five (5) minutes had passed? Would you, could you, post a link? I'll wait.

VIPER,
We're taking two steps forwards and two steps back but it's not turning into a foxtrot.

"plays on semantics" ...seriously?

Why all the confrontation?
Don't wait for a link because it's not coming...
I've done nothing but be polite to you and post what are sound opinions based on what I know, which is a lot. Many of these and certainly the original posts on the topic were in response to a question directly posed to me by another member.

I have never rejected the postulations of yours I disagree with out of hand or called them 'ridiculous,' 'impossible' or 'voodoo medicine,' as you've done to mine. I've couched many things with humor because why fight? I don't understand why you can't let this matter go politely and move forward...but I have a strong suspicion.

I never put forth my medical expertise, which I DO have. I was asked a direct question by Minor and answered it. You involved yourself. You later quoted my response to Minor, Thread 30 #862, and asked me a direct polite question in your post #886 which I answered politely in #891. Then later the descent into madness. I DIDN'T even bring up arterial spurts or blood spatter in the first place.


Why even question Jake liking my recent post in that manner?

 

[Greater Than]

She said this at the trial; I do not believe this was in her written statement. She did not even give her statement until six weeks after the incident and after she had listened to the whole bail hearing.

Was the ballistic expert's findings revealed at the bail hearing? It took place only 5 days after Reeva was killed. That's very little time for a forensic specialist to analyze the crime scene, analyze the evidence, conduct experiments, and perform tests on the collected evidence. I would be very surprised if Mangena's analysis was concluded and discussed at the bail hearing.

And if that's the case, Burger testified about the pause after the first shot genuinely from her own recollection. Mangena corroborated her testimony about two weeks later.